Click image to order

Headbutting the rebutters: GERLICH and TSCHEUSCHNER

It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse EffectsWithin The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpernet al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded
antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We
take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the
current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the
trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Well, I’m glad we are trying to get the CO2 calculations right. Tallbloke-Your friend LEIF Sv. was cited in the New Scientist in 1996 as stating that the Sun might enter a lull causing a cooling. Which would undermine the AGW inspired CO2 production curtailment programs envisoned by the Nupty of Nashville, Patchy Morals, Et. Al. Once the Sun got back on track, we’ll have an even worse scenario. As it appears we are in a Landscheitt moment, a Minimum, which could last for hundreds of years, coupled by at least for now PDO, coupled with La Nina for now, means we are entering an ice age of unknown depth and length. The question is: Can we keep pumping CO2 unfettered for 200 years into a finite space we call our Atmosphere??

Here’s a quote from the 1996 article….’….‘…….The coming years could settle the sun’s role on temperatures once and for all. If the expected sunspot crash does takes place, Solanki’s work could receive dramatic confirmation. “Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the Earth’s climate,” says Weiss.
None of this means that we can stop worrying about global warming caused by emissions into the atmosphere. “The temperature of the Earth in the past few decades does not correlate with solar activity at all,” Solanki says. He estimates that solar activity is responsible for only 30 per cent, at most, of the warming since 1970. The rest must be the result of man-made greenhouse gases, and a crash in solar activity won’t do anything to get rid of them.
What might happen is that the sun gives the planet a welcome respite from the ravages of man-made climate change – though for how long, nobody knows. During the Little Ice Age, the fall in average global temperature is estimated to have been less than 1 °C and lasted 70 years. The one before that persisted for 150 years, but a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century lasted barely 30. For now, we will have to keep watching for falling sunspot numbers. “The deeper the crash, the longer it will last,” Weiss says.
There is a dangerous flip side to this coin. If global warming does slow down or partially reverse with a sunspot crash, industrial polluters and reluctant nations could use it as a justification for turning their backs on pollution controls altogether, makingmatters worse in the long run. There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the sun’s magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”
From issue 2569 of New Scientist magazine, 18 September 2006, page 32-36
————————————————————————————————————————–
(Leif did say he was misquoted BTW)

It is not CO2, phew!, but those pesky walking heat/energy condensers/double layers, most commonly known as mammals, which buffer temperature/energy, or rather in a more extensive sense: Life on earth. (remember UHI effect?)

Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the sun’s magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”
From issue 2569 of New Scientist magazine, 18 September 2006, page 32-36

They apparently accept the validity of the radiative transfer equations but a) don’t definitively explain whether they do b) don’t show why the solutions to these equations by 40 years of atmospheric physics are wrong

ScienceofDoom, clearly you are not an engineer. Thought experiments can not replace actual measurements and testing of hypotheses.
I suppose you will not like Chilingar, G. V., Khilyuk, L. F. and Sorokhtin, O. G.(2008)’Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission’,Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects,30:1,1 — 9 which you can find here http://www.google.com.au/#q=chilingar&hl=en&ei=exmSTOSQGdO6ccSmyPAG&start=30&sa=N&fp=4ea4a308ac696def
They find that the so-called greenhouse effect does not exist on Venus. They are not the only ones that have put that in peer reviewed articles.
Most engineers will understand the thermodynamics involved in compression and expansion and condensation and evaporation of gases. After all that is the practice in refrigeration and air conditioning.

As I saw on another website, concentrating on radiation (particularly black body) is simplistic when climate is complex. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere with a very narrow range of radiation wavelength absorption/emission (14.5 to 14.9 micron). No one has yet proved by measurement that a change to the concentration of the level of CO2 up or down makes any significant change to the conditions of the atmosphere.
Ferenc M. Miskolczi 2010, THE STABLE STATIONARY VALUE OF THE EARTH’S
GLOBAL AVERAGE ATMOSPHERIC PLANCK-WEIGHTED
GREENHOUSE-GAS OPTICAL THICKNESS, Energy & Environment · Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010 (can not find the download site at present) says that over over 61 years there has been no change in optical density of the atmosphere when though CO2 has increased. He suggests that physics needs revision.
One area that could be considered for revision is the concept of photons and back radiation. What if photons do not exist?

———————-Tallbloke————————————————————————————
Here is the blog which i copied. Not sure which thread it’s from over @ WUWT. But here is the back-and-forth with Leif. Warts and all !!!!

johnnythelowery (15:44:27) :
Well, if you drive a Toyota, you might want to stop and get out and legg it!
To Leif:
Perhaps i can ask a question? Leif: this one is for you. I was wondering if you’ve changed your mind about this statement…um…from New Scientist 2006 and if the article was discussed in a thread over here on WUWT
————————————————————-
‘…….The coming years could settle the sun’s role on temperatures once and for all. If the expected sunspot crash does takes place, Solanki’s work could receive dramatic confirmation. “Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the Earth’s climate,” says Weiss.
None of this means that we can stop worrying about global warming caused by emissions into the atmosphere. “The temperature of the Earth in the past few decades does not correlate with solar activity at all,” Solanki says. He estimates that solar activity is responsible for only 30 per cent, at most, of the warming since 1970. The rest must be the result of man-made greenhouse gases, and a crash in solar activity won’t do anything to get rid of them.
What might happen is that the sun gives the planet a welcome respite from the ravages of man-made climate change – though for how long, nobody knows. During the Little Ice Age, the fall in average global temperature is estimated to have been less than 1 °C and lasted 70 years. The one before that persisted for 150 years, but a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century lasted barely 30. For now, we will have to keep watching for falling sunspot numbers. “The deeper the crash, the longer it will last,” Weiss says.
There is a dangerous flip side to this coin. If global warming does slow down or partially reverse with a sunspot crash, industrial polluters and reluctant nations could use it as a justification for turning their backs on pollution controls altogether, makingmatters worse in the long run. There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the sun’s magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”
From issue 2569 of New Scientist magazine, 18 September 2006, page 32-36
————————————————————-
I suppose my question is if you believe that….the warming will return once sun’s magnetic activity returns?? Cheers…. johnnnnny (I am not a spotty German. My German is spotty!!! : ) )

5 04 2010
Leif Svalgaard (16:20:33) :
johnnythelowery (15:44:27) :
There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the sun’s magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”
New Scientist did some cleaver writing back then. The ‘no room for complacency’ is their statement, not mine. The direct quote “if the Earth …”, is cleverly taken out of context as it was my response to their hypothetical: ‘assuming that solar activity had significant effect, then what would be the result of impending cooling during cycle 24 given that global warming was occurring?’
Lesson learned: be careful with what you say to a journalist and demand to see the report before publication.
So, the answer is that I have not changed my mind as no new information has come to light forcing such a change. In fact, the recent temperature anomalies [March Temps etc], might indicate that cycle 24 may not be the cause of the much heralded [but seemingly not happening] global cooling.

5 04 2010
CRS, Dr.P.H. (16:42:04) :
Thanks, Leif! Always good to hear from you! Cheers!
5 04 2010
West Houston (16:54:28) :
Dr. Svalgaard always get me a little closer to an understanding of the Sun’s mysterious actions. I’m sure I won’t ever arrive at his level because he certainly takes much bigger steps than I do.
5 04 2010
Leif Svalgaard (17:00:37) :
West Houston (16:54:28) :
he certainly takes much bigger steps than I do.
A large stride can also be achieved by many small steps.
5 04 2010
co2fan (17:29:49) :
With the solar wind high,geomagnetic storms raging and auroras at their recent peak, this was the best time to fly at high altitude across the pole:
therefore
Jean-Louis Etienne to cross North Pole in a rozière balloonhttp://explorersweb.com/air/news.php?id=19219
”In embarking on this daring adventure, worthy of the novels of Jules Verne, I want to draw the world’s attention to: the shrinking of the Polar sea ice and its impact on the lifestyle of the native peoples of the North; the state of Arctic biodiversity; and the planet-wide climatic chaos that will ensue if the Polar ice disappears. The sea ice is the best indicator we have of the effectiveness of the measures that Man must take to curb global warming.”
Hal
5 04 2010
co2fan (17:39:05) :
A petition drive on Etienne’s website contains this request:
URGENCE CLIMATIQUE !
The Council of the European Union, under the presidency of France, and the Principality of Monaco have joined forces to organise an international conference on the situation in the Arctic, involving representatives of the 17 member states of the European Union.
The aim of the conference is to set up an Arctic observatory to monitor, starting at the end of the International Polar Year, the long-term impact on the region of climate change and pollution.
Networking of data on this subject is a very positive initiative, but the rapid reduction in the polar ice creates an urgent need to address the causes of the problem too, i.e. to make every possible effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The melting of the polar sea ice is already having a serious impact on the life of the indigenous peoples and on the polar ecosystem itself, and particularly on that symbol of the polar zone: the polar bear. But going beyond the local consequences, the disappearance of the sea ice at the North Pole will inevitably trigger a period of climatic chaos, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.
Saving the sea ice is of great importance, and every inhabitant of our planet has a responsibility to take action. Saving the sea ice can be an indicator of Mankind’s ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions on a world scale.
France played a key role in bringing about the moratorium that currently ensures the protection of the Antarctic zone. It is my wish that France, which today holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union, sends a strong signal to the international community, by urging the General Assembly of the United Nations to pass a resolution declaring the Arctic Ocean a “zone of common interest for all humanity”.
This is an important and non-partisan political initiative that will commit the international community without infringing the sovereignty of any country around the polar rim.
If you would like to express support for this initiative, we invite you to sign our on-line petition.http://www.jeanlouisetienne.com/EN/
This might be worth a post.
Hal
Reply: Is there some reason you are unable to click on the Tips and Notes button above? ~ ctm
5 04 2010
Suranda (17:49:00) :
Dr Svalgaard, you know how much I respect you, dressed or undressed. But please dear friend of the Great Science of the Sun, explain how this paper written in the wee hours of 1978, is warning of the interstellar fluff. The Sun is going bezerkoroid, but what about the interstellar cloud:http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978ApJ…223..589V
5 04 2010
John F. Hultquist (18:14:49) :
Leif @16:20:33 Your answer to 15:44:27
You have added to my understanding today with your other responses and I thank you for that. The writer of the New Scientist article must have known what she/he was doing and should have been involuntary retired from the organization. I know reporters often get things wrong but this seems to go beyond incompetence. This is the first time I’ve encountered this particular episode and maybe you have explained it elsewhere. I hope so, but if not, I think it should be widely known.
5 04 2010
Gerry (18:15:39) :
Leif,
I see that the Mean Field (MF) was lower in 2008:
Also though, Figure 13 of http://leif.org/research/Heliospheric%20Magnetic%20Field%201835-2009.pdf shows the Heliospheric Magnetic Field B (HMFB) as being dramatically lower at the end of 2009. Is it not true that HMFB is closely related to solar wind strength? What is happening to HMFB in 2010?
5 04 2010
johnnythelowery (18:18:41) :
Leif: Cheers. I’ve never known the media to get it even closely right when i’ve known the actual source…and checked. Like here. Was what ever was left of your thoughts regurditated by the Gannet New Scientist discussed in a thread i can go to here at WUWT?
About my German. I tried to summarize the Der Spiegel articles thus:
————————————————————–
My German is a bit spotty, but, let me summarize:
Eein AGW Dumpfkoff Science Fraudenscheitz CRU fahrt un Frankenstein Jones. Schnitzel Mann mat un Convalute Data to Stick Hockey for Gore under table transact Billion Kroner/Deutsch with Carbon Credit sgeem. Attencion Alert Max +1.0c/100 yr GATA with Thermometer +/- .5 F accurate to Flugshaft Bomb Pattern WWI. Real Data and Science lookalike Smeagol. Like Tiger: PAtchy Morals, IPCC, CRU, Hardley Ever Center, GITS, Et. Al. prefer laissez-faire with Hot, even Hotter, loose models which niet reveal enigma. Nein to Smeagol, McKintyre, Lief and WUWT science! Disaster..Arctic, UK, EU, and USA all trap eh foit 2009. Re Ipsa (Science) Loquitor. Dankshun Herr Smeagol !
5 04 2010
bubbagyro (18:57:02) :
Hahaha!
Brilliant, Herr Schadenfreude! Das macht meine kennung sehr besser als alle die andere schmuckkaufspieler von CRU! Mit Lobster Bisque, also sprach Zarathustra.
5 04 2010
Leif Svalgaard (19:00:58) :
Suranda (17:49:00) :
this paper written in the wee hours of 1978, is warning of the interstellar fluff.
The paper suggests that we will enter the cloud in 10,000 years or so. at any rate this will be a slow protracted affair and will have little or no influence on the inner solar system as the supersonic solar wind is keeping such stuff well away from us.
Gerry (18:15:39) :
shows the Heliospheric Magnetic Field B (HMFB) as being dramatically lower at the end of 2009. Is it not true that HMFB is closely related to solar wind strength? What is happening to HMFB in 2010?
HMF B the last few years [the numbers can vary from spacecraft to spacecraft in the last decimal place]:
2006: 5.01 nT
2007: 4.49 nT
2008: 4.20 nT
2009: 4.05 nT
2010: 5.19 nT ==== preliminary and not representative for the whole year as the data only goes up to today.
Solar wind strength? not sure what you mean precisely. How to define ’strength’? Here is the typical variation of solar wind parameters (B=magnetic field, V=speed, n=density) over a solar cycle [repeated several time to show the pattern] based on the last 11 cycles. B varies with the sunspot number. V and n have more complicated [but understood] variations. Note that the speed peaks just before minimum.
5 04 2010
Leif Svalgaard (19:03:36) :
johnnythelowery (18:18:41) :
Was what ever was left of your thoughts regurditated by the Gannet New Scientist discussed in a thread i can go to here at WUWT?
Try to translate it into German so I have a chance of understanding it. The English is a bit incoherent…
5 04 2010
Weeble (19:40:31) :
Quick, wrap your electronics in tinfoil!
5 04 2010
Gerry (19:41:56) :
Leif Svalgaard (19:00:58) :
Here is the typical variation of solar wind parameters (B=magnetic field, V=speed, n=density) over a solar cycle [repeated several time to show the pattern] based on the last 11 cycles. B varies with the sunspot number. V and n have more complicated [but understood] variations. Note that the speed peaks just before minimum.
Thank you. I see that n is negatively correlated with magnetic field strength and V is positively correlated, though a slight lag for V is evident.
5 04 2010
Leif Svalgaard (19:56:38) :
Gerry (19:41:56) :
Thank you. I see that n is negatively correlated with magnetic field strength and V is positively correlated, though a slight lag for V is evident.
The dip in n when V has a maximum is simply die to the solar wind being rather steady as regards its mass flux, so that a faster wind has to be thinner. V has its maximum just before solar minimum, when conditions for forming of low-latitude coronal holes are optimal.
5 04 2010
johnnythelowery (20:09:52) :
Lief:
————————————————————-
Leif Svalgaard (19:03:36) :
johnnythelowery (18:18:41) :
Was what ever was left of your thoughts regurditated by the Gannet New Scientist discussed in a thread i can go to here at WUWT?
Try to translate it into German so I have a chance of understanding it. The English is a bit incoherent…
——————————————————-
Was your article from 2006 @ New Scientist ever discussed on a thread here @ WUWT? So I can read it and not bother you with stupid questions (Gannet, the bird, caughs up pre-digested food for it’s young that looks nothing like the original! : …Good for Gannetts but not the press)? I have looked for it but couldn’t find anything. Thx
5 04 2010
johnnythelowery (20:17:33) :
Bubbagyro:
————————————————————-
bubbagyro (18:57:02) :
Hahaha!
Brilliant, Herr Schadenfreude! Das macht meine kennung sehr besser als alle die andere schmuckkaufspieler von CRU! Mit Lobster Bisque, also sprach Zarathustra.
————————————————————-Fantastic! Herr…..Scmukkaufspieler….
I am angling for the post of ‘German Bureau Correspondent @ WUWT’ appointment but i’ve got serious competition! There are just some feelings that are best expressed in German…no matter how incomprehensible my German is….I just feel like i’ve nailed it some how!
5 04 2010
Leif Svalgaard (20:39:02) :
johnnythelowery (20:09:52) :
Was your article from 2006 @ New Scientist ever discussed on a thread here @ WUWT?
Yes, I had a discussion with Harold Ambler about this somewhere on WUWT. Can’t find it right now. The Search function doesn’t work too well [or I’m not using it correctly]
6 04 2010
Mike D. (00:15:07) :
My vote for quote of the week:
“What might happen is that the sun gives the planet a welcome respite from the ravages of man-made climate change”
which is actually from New Scientist 2006, courtesy johnnythelowery (15:44:27).
Oh the ravages. Would those be robust and rigorous ravages? Savage ravages? Is that where Rajendra got the idea for his bodice ripping novel? And thank goodness the sun winked out. Otherwise who knows how savage the ravages might have been…
6 04 2010
Leif Svalgaard (01:16:54) :
Here you can see the [temporary] extra screening of cosmic rays the flux rope gave us: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/ called a Forbush Decrease.
6 04 2010
Tenuc (04:44:43) :
Went out several times last night, but no signs of anything unusual. It has to be a very large event to be visible in the UK.
6 04 2010
johnnythelowery (05:08:00) :
Lief: I was feeling pretty smug telling everyone 2009/10 was going to be a bad winter because of the solar dip based on this article. I accept that probably none of it is accurate. But, if i may just pick your brains and I’m Mr. Layman.
1. Has Weiss gotten his ‘crash’?
2. Has Solanki been able to determine ‘the sun’s role’?
3. It’s been almost 5 years since it was published…have we learned anything since?
4. Who are these guys Weiss and Solanki? do they post over here?
Thanks Leif.
————————————————————-
From that New Scientist article:
‘…….The coming years could settle the sun’s role on temperatures once and for all. If the expected sunspot crash does takes place, Solanki’s work could receive dramatic confirmation. “Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the Earth’s climate,” says Weiss
————————————————————————————————————————–

Part three includes some simple measurements as well, but of course, also relies on arguments from some well-proven and apparently undisputed physics.

Some of my articles have thought experiments because they help explain some difficult concepts. I assume that is what you are referring to? This idea is the staple of every engineering and physics undergraduate course.

“I suppose you will not like Chilingar et al (2008), Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission..”

They show that convection is very important in moving heat between the surface and the troposphere.

Well, be amazed that everyone knows that already. It is in all the text books. It is referred to in any paper which covers this subject. However, they present it as a revelation. An alternative.

They are “having a laugh”.

Check out Lindzen (1990), ‘Some Coolness concerning Global Warming’, for example. He shows that without convection the earth’s surface would be much higher due to the “greenhouse” effect..

Chilingar et al don’t do a single calculation of the important effect of increasing radiatively-active gases (like CO2).

The important effect is in the radiative cooling from the earth’s climate system. How does the solar energy leave the planet? Only by radiation. You can’t move heat into space via convection.

And because they don’t actually calculate the effect of increased CO2 on the ability of the earth’s climate system to space they are having you on. If they were serious they would at least have commented on it. If they were really serious they would have shown a calculation.

Misdirection.

If you want to be skeptic, you need to challenge ideas, not accept anything you hear that supports something you want to believe in.

“As I saw on another website, concentrating on radiation (particularly black body) is simplistic when climate is complex..”

I saw on a website somewhere that someone had seen Elvis last year.. Instead of just believing it why not find out whether serious people who study climate science actually claim the straw man idea in the first place.

“Leaving G&T aside for a moment, do you accept that back radiation doesn’t heat the oceans to any significant degree?”

I have read many people claim this. I haven’t seen any evidence. It seems to be very popular though.

Popularity is over-rated.

Looking at it from the other side I haven’t yet spent any time on this subject to demonstrate that it does heat the oceans. It’s something I want to look into.

I think the popular idea is that back-radiation heats the top micron of the ocean, which then evaporates and causes clouds, cooling the earth.

Therefore, qed, there can’t be any “greenhouse” heating. End of tidy story.

Regardless of whether energy absorbed by the top micron of the ocean surface is absorbed into the body of the ocean it will either add energy to the ocean or the boundary layer of the troposphere. It then remains to demonstrate whether more water vapor in the boundary layer is a positive or negative feedback. The subject is quite complicated.

But if it’s what you believe you should state it.

And in which case, ditch your G&T support. G&T don’t think that the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually exists. And if back-radiation doesn’t exist or magically disappears when it is incident on the earth’s surface there is no need to consider the effect of this imaginary energy on the ocean or land.

If you look at the intro to this thread, I don’t think you can accuse me of ‘supporting G&T, unless you think that merely by letting people know about their reply to Halpern et al, I am somehow siding with them. To be honest, I haven’t had the time to digest their original paper or Halpern et al’s rebuttal, or G&T’s response. I’m just putting it up there for others who might be sufficiently interested to dig deeper.

Just because popularity is overrated doesn’t mean the correctness of a proposition is undermined because a lot of people agree with it. Using a super dooper thermometer pair, the real climate boys tried to show back radiation did heat the ocean surface. They found a clear/cloudy sky difference of something like 0.0002K.

The physics is pretty clear to my way of seeing it, though I don’t claim to be an expert. An easy back garden experiment is to set two plastic cups of water near each other on a table, one in shade and one in sunshine. Both are being hit by the same amount of back radiation of ~340W/m^2 (as long as the shading object isn’t right overhead) but only the one in direct sunlight heats appreciably. Try t yourself. I used a cheap digital thermometer used for checking meat joints are cooked through.

The big picture is that the sun heats the ocean far more than back radiation could possibly do, and the oceans heat the atmosphere, as shown by the ~3 month lag between SST’s and LT temps. The atmosphere chucks half back at Earth, and loses the other half to space. The rates at which these energy flows occur are primarily affected by water vapour in the form of clouds, which modulate the amount of solar reaching the surface of the ocean and land, and regulate the rate at which the ocean conveys heat to the atmosphere and out to space through the latent heat of evaporation, convection, conduction and radiation.

How back radiation heats the land would depend on soil mechanics and moisture content etc, but in any case, wouldn’t the land surface be emitting about as much LW as it would be absorbing?

It’s a subject I’d like to know more about too, but the big picture seems pretty clear, and given the falling humidity over the last 50 years while it’s atmospheric concentration has risen, co2 has a pretty small bit part in the story as far as I see it.

“How back radiation heats the land would depend on soil mechanics and moisture content etc, but in any case, wouldn’t the land surface be emitting about as much LW as it would be absorbing?”

A statement like this is quite surprising. “..in any case..” ???

It is important to understand the basics of heat transfer.

In any equilibrium situation Ein = Eout.
In non-equilibrium Ein-Eout = energy retained
The first law of thermodynamics.

The question is how this balance is obtained.

The more incident radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface the higher the temperature goes. And as the temperature increases there is a higher emission of thermal radiation. It also creates a temperature differential (between the surface and atmosphere) which drives convective cooling.

The point is that the way equilibrium is reached is through an increased temperature. (In the case of higher energy absorbed).

If you don’t thoroughly grasp this concept you can’t make progress in understanding the thermodynamics of climate – or of any system.

Ask yourself the question – how is the ocean radiating an average of around 390 W/m^2 when it only receives an average of 240 W/m^2?

Why doesn’t the ocean cool down? Where is the extra energy coming from to keep it at such a high temperature?

I know the crust is a lot thinner on the ocean bed than on land. And there are a lot of volcanos erupting underwater. Does anyone have a handle on how much energy is transferred into the oceans from below?

It would appear to me that there is an error in data, in or out or both. I find that sometimes an error is in data going in and sometimes it is in concept. pg

The data is pretty simple to understand. It might appear to you there is an error in the data – so either your understanding of the problem is wrong or you should be able to find the error in the data.

Check out The Earth’s Energy Budget – Part One.
We measure the solar radiation with many satellites. When we average the absorbed radiation over the surface of the earth annual it is a very easy calculation. It comes to 239 W/m^2.

We measure the temperature all around the globe with quite a high frequency, including the sea surface temperature. Radiation emitted from a surface = εσT^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann equation), where ε is emissivity, around 0.99 for the ocean, σ = 5.67×10^-8 and T is absolute temperature. When you calculate this value all around the globe (land and sea) and take the average you find it is around 396 W/m^2. If you calculate it just for the sea surface and exclude land I expect it is very close to this.

Measuring emitted surface radiation is an expensive exercise, this is why the calculation has to be done. Perhaps you can find the flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. But this is simply derived from Planck’s law of emission of thermal radiation.

So we aren’t talking about 1W/m^2 discrepancy. We are talking about an extremely large discrepancy.

If you can find the “error” then you will become famous. The satellite measurements? The formula for emission of thermal radiation – Planck and Stefan-Boltzmann – backed up by 100 years of physics?

Instead you will find your preconceptions are wrong and solar radiation alone cannot explain the high ocean surface temperature.

The solution to this discrepancy is very well-known and the only scientific solution to the problem. But not popular on many blogs.

Boring technical note: I said earlier: “When you calculate this value all around the globe and take the average you find it is around 396 W/m^2. If you calculate it just for the sea surface and exclude land I expect it is very close to this.”

If you then are thinking “ah ha, you don’t know exactly, so you are just guessing or making it up” – no. The only way the oceans can emit 239 W/m^2 is by being at an average temperature of -18’C (255K). Hopefully, all the readers of this blog can see that this is not the case.

Ignoring some tedious maths, the average ocean temperature is around 15’C and therefore the average emission of thermal radiation by the oceans is around 390 W/m^2.

If the average ocean temperature was 5’C the surface radiation would be 339 W/m^2.
If 1’C, the value would be 320 W/m^2.

It appears to me that you have answered your own question. by the way I would not believe any thing that Planck said. half of accepted physics is screwed up because of his poor work and self engrandizment. I have too few years left to correct all the stupid things people believe even IF I wanted to. If I can get others to reexamine the point of view that they were taught, purhaps they will have an enlightening moment. pg

..by the way I would not believe any thing that Planck said. half of accepted physics is screwed up because of his poor work and self engrandizment.

When you present your evidence for your statement I will take a look.

For anyone else reading this blog, note that Planck’s work is the staple of every course in thermodynamics. Take a physics or an engineering degree course and you will learn it and use it. People who design heat exchangers, furnaces, and aircrafts all use it.

TB: as I mentioned some time ago when we had a chat, barely anyone can bring themselves to plot solar and terrestrial together in one.

Do it log/log. What’s all the the noise about semi-log?

The plots also do a very vague, as far as useless, “sunshine on earth”. Is that in space for both. At the surface of the earth? Or what?
If it is on earth it says unfiltered but the atmosphere filters.

scienceofdoom says:
September 18, 2010 at 12:57 am
We measure the solar radiation with many satellites. When we average the absorbed radiation over the surface of the earth annual it is a very easy calculation. It comes to 239 W/m^2…. Radiation emitted from a surface = εσT^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann equation), where ε is emissivity, around 0.99 for the ocean, σ = 5.67×10^-8 and T is absolute temperature. When you calculate this value all around the globe (land and sea) and take the average you find it is around 396 W/m^2. If you calculate it just for the sea surface and exclude land I expect it is very close to this.

Sure, but this doesn’t alter the fact that longwave radiation is unable to penetrate the surface of the ocean much beyond its own wavelength. So the fact that there is a lot of energy bouncing back and forth between atmosphere and ocean surface, although interesting in itself, doesn’t make the biggest hill of beans within the the ‘big picture’ I outlined for you earlier, but which you haven’t addressed, apart from picking up on my poorly expressed comment about energy equilibrium.

Here it is again if you’d like to have a look and a think about it:

The big picture is that the sun heats the (bulk of the) ocean far more than back radiation could possibly do, and the oceans heat the atmosphere, as shown by the ~3 month lag between SST’s and LT temps. The atmosphere re-emits half the longwave radiation back to Earth’s surface, and loses the other half to space. The surface re-emits this energy, along with the rest of the outgoing energy derived from the sun. The rates at which these energy flows occur are primarily affected by water vapour in the form of clouds, which modulate the amount of solar reaching the surface of the ocean and land, and regulate the rate at which the ocean conveys heat to the atmosphere and out to space through the latent heat of evaporation, convection, conduction and radiation.

The big picture seems pretty clear, and given the falling humidity over the last 50 years while co2’s atmospheric concentration has risen, co2 has a pretty small bit part in the story as far as I see it, because the supposed water vapour feedback from increasing co2 isn’t happening to any great extent if at all, although the modelers still cling to it in order to get co2 to do anything exciting in their models. Where’s the tropospheric hotspot? It’s of primary importance in the models, but it hasn’t showed up in real world atmospheric measurements to anything like the magnitude required to justify a theoretical strong positive water vapour feedback or a high climate sensitivity.

Another key point here is that because it can’t penetrate the ocean, the back radiation, which as you point out, represents a considerable number of watts/m^2, gets concentrated heating the few molecules of water depth on the surface, and causes prompt evaporation. The hot water vapour produced rises, cools, condenses, forms clouds, loses its latent energy. As Dr Roy Spencer points out, we don’t have the sign or magnitude of all these processes pinned down, but from real world empirical data it’s looking like clouds are a negative feedback on the climate system.

The top two metres of the ocean have as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. The way I see it in simple terms, considering the most important processes and effects, is that clouds are more effective at shading the energy absorbing ocean from the sun during the day, than they are at trapping heat in the comparitively puny heat capacity of the atmosphere at night. Added to which, in the tropics, where most of Earth’s energy absorption occurs, clouds build up during the afternoon, and dissipate at night anyway. From an engineers perspective, looking at the Earth as an enormous heat engine, it’s pretty obvious where the biggest and most important energy flows are happening.

My primary complaint about the lines of argument pursued by proponents of the man made global warming hypothesis, is that they just won’t stand back and look at the big picture, or discuss the main drivers in the climate system, the sun, clouds and the oceans. Instead, they get fixated on the minutiae of the radiative physics of 0.039% of the atmosphere, and choose to ignore the fact that in terms of the relative scales of the climate system’s energy flows, co2 is a tiny and relatively unimportant component in energy terms.

It’s true that the devil is in the detail, and I’m happy to go through all this with you line by line if necessary. But if you just nitpick a couple of details to score rhetorical points, and continue to avoid addressing the big picture, you won’t taken very seriously by people who are working here to understand the whole earth system, within the whole solar system.

Tallbloke, thanks for your comeback to Scienceofdoom. It is clear that he (he is genderless) is no engineer and can not speak for engineers. In fact he should be concerned, if he lives in a state/country which has a professional engineers act, that someone does not take him to court for a) not being registered and b) being incompetent.
Radiation is not a direct part of thermodynamics- a definition is “Thermodynamics is the branch of science that embodies the principles of energy transformation in macroscopic systems”.
The second law of thermodynamics is “The entropy change of any system and its surroundings, considered together, resulting from any real process is positive, approaching zero when the process approaches reversibility”. This been expressed as (and generally accepted) that heat can only flow from a high temperature source to a cold temperature receiver and never the reverse.
Radiation is part of the subject Heat and Mass Transfer of which Scienceofdoom appears to have very little knowledge. It is defined as “Radiation is the transfer of heat from one body to another, not in contact with it by means of wave motion through space”. (note no mention of photons, this particularly applies to microwaves) Engineers who have made research and measurements into equipment heat loss and heat exchanger design have found that a low temperatures (eg less than 100C) convective and phase change is more important than radiation. The reason is that there is a boundary layer which changes surface conditions. Engineers are just starting to study boundary layers with new sophisticated instruments. The Stefan-Boltzman equation applies to black bodies in a vacuum. With emissivity adjustments it can give approximate heat transfer for high temperature situations where boundary layer conditions are overwhelmed, but even here convection can be important. In situations of flames licking products in a furnace convection can be higher than radiation.
Scienceofdoom’s calculation of radiation from sea surfaces are nonsense. G&T (and others) have proposed on serious consideration that there is no significant radiation from the surface and that convection and water latent heat transfer move heat to the upper atmosphere (where pressures are near vacuum) for radiation to space. Another, approach could be that the emissivity of the boundary layer at the surface is very low and that 40 to 60 w/m2 are directly radiated to space (no back radiation) with the remainder radiated from the upper atmosphere.
As indicated climate is very complex and there is much to be learned.

“As it appears we are in a Landscheitt moment, a Minimum, which could last for hundreds of years, coupled by at least for now PDO, coupled with La Nina for now, means we are entering an ice age of unknown depth and length.”

There is a significant increase in colder N.H winters from 2014 for two decades, but it is followed by a much warmer period from 2025 to 2038.

“Solanki says. He estimates that solar activity is responsible for only 30 per cent, at most, of the warming since 1970.”

To understand the effects of solar activity on land surface temperatures, one needs to look at the finest details. Here we consistently see warming spurts concurrent with higher solar wind speeds. Pick a solar cycle and compare monthly SSN with a surface record such as CET, and it is apparent how often higher SSN can lead to a drop in the solar wind velocity, and a corresponding drop in surface temp`s. If the sunspot activity is very strong, like around maximum, then fast and very turbulent solar winds can then provide warming spurts.
To look at solar and temperature data at a yearly or larger scale is pointless, as it is the short term condition of solar activity that determines the weather, and hence the prevailing climatic conditions through any given year. From this perspective, we can appreciate the relationship between temp`s and rainfall per season, and fully express climatic variation, by including the all important hydrological outlooks to map out flood/drought cycles far in advance.

However, I can produce evidence suggesting there is usually a (or couple) of temperature spike at the start of a solar cycle… and 2010? Message here is temperature only weakly follows the optical solar stuff.

The following might be cherry picking so if someone can do some trawling it would be useful. These are not the only spikes, but there seems to be a pattern.
Generally they do not seem to happen at solar max.
This is something which would be very useful for many people. Part works do seem to exist on the web for various things.

1923http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm
“The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The temperature, measured under standard exposure conditions, reached or exceeded the century mark every day from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, a total of 160 days.”

I’m unclear what your point is. If it’s a “let’s paint a big picture idea in a few paragraphs” it’s not very interesting. Because the only way to see whether it holds together is in the details.

You wrote an article apparently supporting G&T.

I commented that they had avoided facing up to the evidence about the DLR aka “back radiation”.

You asked me whether I thought the back radiation heated the ocean.

I asked how you believe the ocean can emit radiation of 390 W/m^2 if it is only heated by solar radiation of 240 W/m^2.

If you don’t want to discuss the specifics that’s fine. I think the only way to test people’s ideas is to question specifics. Note that I still don’t know what you think and that’s why I am asking the questions.

I’m unclear what your point is. If it’s a “let’s paint a big picture idea in a few paragraphs” it’s not very interesting. Because the only way to see whether it holds together is in the details.

My main point is that there are complex systems of feedbacks going on in the atmosphere with water vapour which we haven’t been able to quantify, or even identify, and that these are of a much larger magnitude than the alleged co2 forcing. Therefore, we don’t yet know if Miskolzci is right or wrong, though the empirical evidence seems to support him more than the mainstream climate modelers. So it’s entirely possible that any forcing from co2 is negated by other negative feedbacks. Water vapour is by far the strongest and more prevalent greenhouse gas, and it would only take a very minor adjustment in its activity to offset any difference made by increased co2 levels.

You wrote an article apparently supporting G&T.

No I didn’t, I simply posted the intro to their headbuttal of the rebutters and commented that they didn’t mince their words.

I asked how you believe the ocean can emit radiation of 390 W/m^2 if it is only heated by solar radiation of 240 W/m^2. If you don’t want to discuss the specifics that’s fine.

I did address this question:
“Sure, but this doesn’t alter the fact that longwave radiation is unable to penetrate the surface of the ocean much beyond its own wavelength. So the fact that there is a lot of energy bouncing back and forth between atmosphere and ocean surface, although interesting in itself, doesn’t make the biggest hill of beans within the the ‘big picture’ I outlined for you earlier”

I’ll further clarify that by reiterating that it’s not the bulk of the ocean which is emitting the difference between the 240W/m^2 solar incoming and the 390W/m^2 outgoing but the evaporating molecules of water just on and above it’s surface.

I think the only way to test people’s ideas is to question specifics. Note that I still don’t know what you think and that’s why I am asking the questions.

As I said, I’m happy to go through it line by line with you, provided you don’t make me feel like I’m wasting my time by replying in such a way as to give me the impression you are deliberatley ignoring the bigger picture of enormous unknown feedbacks which may well be negating the effect of increased atmospheric co2. The admission of uncertainty is the start of the path to knowledge, not a retreat to ignorance. The denial or avoidance of discussion of uncertainty is the negation of the scientific method and the reinforcement of dogma. Come on, if Kevin Trenberth can do it, I’m sure you can.🙂

It’s your blog and I respect your right to run it how you want.

If you think I’m running my blog in a bad way feel free to get speciific about what you think I’m doing wrong, constructive criticism is welcome.

Tim,
I have a theory about the reason big spikes in temperature often occur at or soon after solar minimum, and less frequently at solar max. In a nutshell, when the sun gets quiet, the trend of solar energy being forced down into the ocean reverses, and some of the energy comes back out of the ocean in el nino events. One of the effects of that is that the solar signal in the temperature data gets flattened to a large degree, leaving the impression that the sun is less of a forcing on the climate system than it actually is. I posted about this some time ago:https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/el-nino-and-the-solar-cycle/

I did address this question:
“Sure, but this doesn’t alter the fact that longwave radiation is unable to penetrate the surface of the ocean much beyond its own wavelength. So the fact that there is a lot of energy bouncing back and forth between atmosphere and ocean surface, although interesting in itself, doesn’t make the biggest hill of beans within the the ‘big picture’ I outlined for you earlier”

I’ll further clarify that by reiterating that it’s not the bulk of the ocean which is emitting the difference between the 240W/m^2 solar incoming and the 390W/m^2 outgoing but the evaporating molecules of water just on and above it’s surface.

I haven’t seen any evidence that all of the DLR (back radiation) goes into only evaporating water vapor. So far it’s just an assertion.

When you heat the surface of a liquid or solid you generally find that some heat is conducted through the bulk of the liquid/solid. There is a set of equations to solve which depend on a few other parameters.

As always the 1st law of thermodynamics is used as energy is conserved.

So you need to know k (thermal conductivity) which depends on the turbulent mixing of the ocean. For stirred water k is of the order of 10^4 W/m.K, whereas for still water it is of the order of 1 W/m.K.
And you need to know the temperature in the bulk of the ocean to work out ΔT.

If we wanted to add the heat evaporated we would need to know some other parameters including (especially) the relative humidity of the air just above the air-ocean interface, and a few convective parameters, usually empirically derived.

An easy way to test the claim that “all back radiation goes into evaporation” is to do a simple energy balance test.

This suggests that the DLR does warm the ocean, otherwise the ocean would be cooling.

So I look forward to you backing up your claim.

As a less interesting aside, if you believe that the DLR exists and either warms the ocean (not so far) or adds heat via evaporation (appears you do) then you believe that Gerlich and Tscheuschner are wrong. Your blog readers might be interested to know this.

Isn’t “Solar SW radiation absorbed = 165 W/m^2” instead of “Solar radiation absorbed = 240 W/m^2” better in this context? But you see, it doesn’t matter, because “G&T (and others) have proposed on serious consideration that there is no significant radiation from the surface” i.e sea water does not follow the laws of physics, a magic substance🙂

I haven’t seen any evidence that all of the DLR (back radiation) goes into only evaporating water vapor. So far it’s just an assertion.

And I haven’t seen any evidence that any significant amount of the DLR goes into heating the bulk of the ocean. In fact, going on the Realclimate effort to empirically determine the issue, rather the opposite.🙂

An easy way to test the claim that “all back radiation goes into evaporation” is to do a simple energy balance test.

This suggests that the DLR does warm the ocean, otherwise the ocean would be cooling.

Your statement is a logical fallacy known as non-sequiteur. The second bit doesn’t necessarily follow from the first. According to my own analysis of the data, the ocean warms when the sun puts out above average TSI and cools when it’s below average.

I put it to you that it isn’t determined whether the additional radiation is coming from the ocean surface or the energetic water vapour molecules just above it. If it is the latter, then half the LW from those molecules will be hitting the surface, and so on down to the liquid water. Those water vapour molecules will be absorbing the DLR from higher up in the troposphere, so there will be significantly less than 390W/m^2 actually making it to the liquid ocean surface, because the humid air just above it will absorb much of the DLR from higher up, and only re-emit half of it downwards.

Whatever the microphysics of the ocean-air interface, the bigger picture is that there is some sort of tendency to equilibrium, but because DLW can’t penetrate much further than its own wavelength into water, and any downward mixing of heat from DLR is tiny compared to the flow of energy coming outwards, and because the heat capacity of the ocean is so much bigger than that of the atmosphere it’s not of much consequence. Shortwave sunlight penetrates 70+ metres into clear ocean water, DLR penetrates a few nanometres. The Sun heats the bulk of the ocean, not the atmosphere.

So I look forward to you backing up your claim.

Likewise. Perhaps if we consider the ocean/atmosphere as a coupled system we can avoid the need to buy expensive radiometer equipment and travel together to the seaside. So considering that the top two metres of the ocean has as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it, and that hot air and hot water vapour in general rises, and that ocean surface temperatures lead air temperatures globally by around 3 months, which do you think is the main driver of Earth’s climate system, the ocean, or the atmosphere? It’s a straight question, to which I expect a straight answer.

I notice you are still unwilling to engage on the issue of uncertainty.

I also look forward to you embracing and discussing the bigger picture, instead of fixating on radiation.

As a less interesting aside, if you believe that the DLR exists and either warms the ocean (not so far) or adds heat via evaporation (appears you do) then you believe that Gerlich and Tscheuschner are wrong. Your blog readers might be interested to know this.

I try not to push my beliefs in posts concerning the work of others, I merely inform and then express my own ideas in comments. Until I’ve found the time to study Their work closely, I’ll reserve judgement on your characterisation of it.

Thank you Tim Channon for pointing out how terribly imprecise it is to say 1998 was “at Solar Max.” Yet it was ramping up to Solar Max, on a straight up incline, and you can see that the sunspot numbers in 1998 were comparable to lower sunspot numbers in 2000 and on.

You probably will not split the difference with me there. However, what I am getting at is that there is a means, motive and opportunity to negate or greatly obscure any relationship between solar activity and earth’s weather/climate variations.

2010 was chilly, and we all know it. It was also very sluggish on the sun, and we all know it. So calling it a hottest year would provide snappy one-line dismissals for AGWers to rule out this largely unexplored relationship.

It might even be effective, although I do not think most people will forget that easily that it was not at all hotter than usual in 2010, and for many of us it was notably cooler. So I think it could also backfire badly on them to take that 2010-was-one-of-the-hottest route.

In fact, while on the subject, I think there is reasonable cause to look into the realtionship between solar activity and not just avg global temps, but also other phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, storms, volcanoes, gravity field measurements, disturbances in Earth’s magnetic fields, and perhaps even water level measurements.

Where can we find such an inquiry, where there is broad “formal international cooperation in geophysical subdisciplines” and their relations to solar activity?

Zeke the Sneak says:
September 20, 2010 at 6:53 pm
What is more consistent with the El Nino maximums in both 1998 and 2010 is the heliocentric conjunction density during both warming peaks…..

1998;
July 3rd Venus and Saturn,
July 23rd Earth and Neptune,
August 3rd Earth and Uranus,
August 21st Venus and Mars,
September16th Earth and Jupiter,
October 23rd Earth and Saturn.

2010;
June 1st Mars and Saturn,
June 18th Venus and Saturn,
June 24th Venus and Mars,
August 20th Earth and Neptune,
September 16th Venus and Neptune,
September 21st Earth and Jupiter and Uranus,
September 24th Jupiter and Uranus,
October 5th Venus and Uranus,
October 6th Venus and Jupiter,
October 29th Earth with Venus.

In both cases just a butt load of heliocentric conjunctions during the time when the Earth was passing between the sun and the galactic center side of the solar system. Where the interplanetary magnetic fields are maximal during the annual cycle. All of these conjunctions assist the lunar declination tides in clearing clouds from the equator into the mid latitudes, (which produces the El Nino effect in the first place).

By allowing the sst to heat up, and the cloud cover increase at mid-latitudes to slow night time cooling. As the progression of interactions of the orbital periods of these major planets spread out the lumping of conjunctions in boreal summer, on into the fall and winter there is going to be a long term change in the time of year that the maximum precipitation occurs globally.

If the above associations are responsible for the solar activity levels as well, the question I have is the sun in any kind of control over the planetary weather effects or is it just being affected as well and in good correlation because it is just trapped to responding in kind to outside galactic drivers?

Zeke the Sneak says:
September 20, 2010 at 7:31 pm

“In fact, while on the subject, I think there is reasonable cause to look into the realtionship between solar activity and not just avg global temps, but also other phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, storms, volcanoes, gravity field measurements, disturbances in Earth’s magnetic fields, and perhaps even water level measurements. ”
Reply;
Do we need to tease apart the amount of which is responsible for how much of what?

Richard Holle says:
September 20, 2010 at 8:44 pm “If the above [planetary] associations are responsible for the solar activity levels as well, the question I have is the sun in any kind of control over the planetary weather effects or is it…”

I don’t mind if I remark on your extraordinary understanding of the planets and their positions and motions about the sun. That is going to be a very important piece of the puzzle, but leaving it for now;

we can plainly see that the planets have inexplicable weather according to standard meteorological theories we use here on earth.

Some examples include: planet wide dust storms as well as tornadoes the size of Mt Everest on a planet with 1% of Earth’s atmosphere; continuous lightning activity and heat enough to melt lead, as well as a stringy, cometary tail for Venus;

On the gas giants we have windspeeds on Jupiter in excess of 600 km/hr, unbelievable windspeeds likewise for Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus, along with intense lightning storms and dazzling auroral activity.

They are all showing a pattern which is at the very least can be described as exhibiting far more energy in their systems than they are receiving from the Sun in TSI.

Some people like to dink around with temperature differences (-100 or -200 deg) being enough to drive the winds. But temperature differences won’t give you radio signals, or x-rays which have been observed on Mars.

Why not look into where this power is coming from, and seek to understand the Earth’s weather effects in terms of our space age observations of the planets, rather than trying to use earthly observations to try to explain away what we see on the planets?

What the Electric Universe suggests is that these powerful phenomena are electrical in nature.

“It’s always been a puzzle to geologists where the energy of an earthquake comes from. The energy comes from a stored electric charge within the earth. A discharge takes place beneath the earth – then you must get effects on the surface that are felt, and the earthquake is one such consequence.

…That also extends to volcanoes. Because it’s never been…it’s just a story we have been told about these diaperes, as they are called, these molten blobs of magma rising through the rock above, and finally coming out on the surface. It’s much simpler to consider that what is going on is a discharge from within the earth–an electrical discharge–to the surface of the earth. And quite often lightning has been observed above a newly forming volcano – and also some of the most spectacular lightning discharges ever seen are above volcanoes.”

PMJ: “Also, didn’t you tell me before that in earthquakes they are detecting large electric currents?”

WT: “Yes, currents…Yes, they’ve detected all kinds of electrical effects, including magnetic effects too…and things like glows and discharges above ground, and animals seem to pick up on this change in the electrical environment.”

WT: “Effectively the discharges extend to space. And from there beyond to the magnetosphere, which then begs the question ‘Where is this electric current going to or coming from?’ and the answer is it’s coming from the solar circuit.”

“All planets have this connection to the solar circuit, which means that they are accepting electrical charge from the sun. It was imagined initially that these strange lightnings above storms were coming from the storm below. But the evidence is all in favor of the fact that the electrical energy is already sitting up there in the ionosphere waiting to get to earth. And it just comes down through those various elves, gnomes, the sprites – all of these whimsical names given to things that are not understood. Now once the charge gets to the thundercloud,

the electricity is distributed in the thundercloud, and then it is discharged to the ground through the normal lightning bolts. Or through tornadoes. Tornadoes are a slow electric vortex.”

As I said, just a bird’s eye view, but something to consider. It has been studied in more detail, but this shows the general path the electricity takes. And electricity is clearly in evidence here.

Hi Zeke, yes, that’s what the global electrical circuit thread is all about. Energy coming in from above, and up from below. I agree with you about IUGG’s solar blind spot. In the UK funding for solar research was drastically cut a few years ago…

Richard, very interesting obs regarding the planetary conjunctions and alignments being between the sun and the galactic centre. I’d been wondering for a while if the sixty year apparent ‘climate cycle’ was connected with every third Jupiter-Saturn conjunction which take place close to 120 degrees apart from each other on a ~900 year shifting cycle. That would also fit with the Roman warm period – dark ages – Medieval warm period – Little ice age – Modern warm period sinusoid.

Richard, very interesting obs regarding the planetary conjunctions and alignments being between the sun and the galactic centre. I’d been wondering for a while if the sixty year apparent ‘climate cycle’ was connected with every third Jupiter-Saturn conjunction which take place close to 120 degrees apart from each other on a ~900 year shifting cycle. That would also fit with the Roman warm period – dark ages – Medieval warm period – Little ice age – Modern warm period sinusoid.
______________________________________________

Every 3rd J/S synod will vary a great deal, due to being in different positions relative U+N.
I make the observed frequency of warm periods around 1150yrs, 1/4 of the 4627yr Jovian cycle.

I made a detailed forecast for the 2010 hurricane season production, then in the comments section added details on how I thought the solar system dynamics fit into the Earth global process. Well today there should be forming a large CME to validate my expectations, a power grid surge in the next three days that may cause a large blackout, and a resumption of global hurricane production for the next month and a half.

You can read the originals there in the comments section, unless Rog wants to have repetitive stuff scattered all over his blog, I’ll just refer you to it.

scienceofdoom says:
September 17, 2010 at 9:15 pm“In any equilibrium situation Ein = Eout.
In non-equilibrium Ein-Eout = energy retained
The first law of thermodynamics.

The question is how this balance is obtained.

The more incident radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface the higher the temperature goes. And as the temperature increases there is a higher emission of thermal radiation. It also creates a temperature differential (between the surface and atmosphere) which drives convective cooling.

The point is that the way equilibrium is reached is through an increased temperature….

Unfortunately, due to the inherent deterministic chaos inherent in our turbulent atmosphere and ocean, none of the SST measurements are very accurate, and the true state of the Earth’s energy balance at any instant in time remains unknown. The models used to estimate the energy balance are flawed, as they do not have accurate data, data granularity is far too low and the algorithms used are not a replication of all the interlinked climate mechanisms – they also suffer from ‘confirmation’ bias (as indicated by Kevin Trenberth comments in the CLimategate emails).

Infra-red remote sensing satellites measures the radiation emanating from the top “skin” of the ocean only (approx. 0.01 mm or less), and this does not represent the bulk temperature of the upper meter of ocean (SST1m) due to effects of solar surface heating, reflectance, sensible heat loss and surface evaporation.

Satellites can’t see through clouds and this results in the creation of a Varying “fair-weather bias” in long-term averages of SST. These factors make it impossible to get a good understanding of the ever changing temperature of SST1m of the ocean. Buoys and shipboard methods do a better job of measuring SST1m, but only produce data of low spacial granularity.

Your statement is a logical fallacy known as non-sequiteur. The second bit doesn’t necessarily follow from the first. According to my own analysis of the data, the ocean warms when the sun puts out above average TSI and cools when it’s below average.

Actually the second bit does follow from the first – or, strictly speaking, if the first twp statements are true (“Solar radiation absorbed = 240 W/m^2”, “Emission of thermal radiation from the ocean surface = 390 W/m^2”) then you need to find a large source of energy which explains the discrepancy. I am proposing the DLR. You could also propose that the first law of thermodynamics is flawed (just covering all bases).

You are proposing “the sun” without explaining the gap between absorbed and emitted radiation.

“According to my own analysis of the data..” – that’s what I have asking for since your first question to me.

Provide your analysis with numbers and then it can be assessed. Otherwise it is just poetry.

..Those water vapour molecules will be absorbing the DLR from higher up in the troposphere, so there will be significantly less than 390W/m^2 actually making it to the liquid ocean surface, because the humid air just above it will absorb much of the DLR from higher up, and only re-emit half of it downwards..

No, the value 390 W/m^2 is the upward emission of thermal radiation from the surface.
And the DLR – average (annual global) value 340 W/m^2 – is typical measured a few meters off the ground over land.

I’m not sure what you are claiming – that a significant proportion of DLR is absorbed in the last meter because of the high humidity?

Whatever the microphysics of the ocean-air interface, the bigger picture is that there is some sort of tendency to equilibrium..

There is a huge tendency to equilibrium. Conduction, convection and radiation all move heat from higher to lower temperatures.

and any downward mixing of heat from DLR is tiny compared to the flow of energy coming outwards, and because the heat capacity of the ocean is so much bigger than that of the atmosphere it’s not of much consequence. Shortwave sunlight penetrates 70+ metres into clear ocean water, DLR penetrates a few nanometres. The Sun heats the bulk of the ocean, not the atmosphere.

The fact that DLR penetrates a micron or less while solar radiation penetrates many meters actually still means that there is a temperature differential between the bulk of the ocean and the surface. There is a high level of turbulent mixing of the top few meters of the ocean and conduction and convection from the surface layer to lower levels.

Your analysis needs to demonstrate why convection and conduction no longer operate. If you heat the surface of a liquid you will get conduction from this surface into the bulk of the fluid.

The normal laws of thermodynamics still apply to the ocean.

That was my first comment when you asked my opinion about DLR (not) heating the ocean. “I haven’t seen any evidence for it” – the idea that DLR doesn’t heat the ocean.

It seems that many people have found that DLR only penetrates the top micron and have jumped to a conclusion. This conclusion needs evidence. Restating that DLR only penetrates the top micron isn’t evidence that convection and conduction of heat don’t take place.

So considering that the top two metres of the ocean has as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it, and that hot air and hot water vapour in general rises, and that ocean surface temperatures lead air temperatures globally by around 3 months, which do you think is the main driver of Earth’s climate system, the ocean, or the atmosphere? It’s a straight question, to which I expect a straight answer.

It’s actually not a straight question at all. I suggest a “false dichotomy”.

Ocean – because it stores most of the heat. (The answer you wanted to hear?)

What does that mean? It appears to mean that the amount of radiation reaching the surface isn’t important. The earth’s energy balance is determined by absorption and emission of radiation, both at the surface and through the opaque (to longwave) and semi-opaque(to shortwave) atmosphere.
The energy balance is affected strongly by the atmosphere- both by the concentration of “greenhouse” gases like water vapor, CO2 and ozone and by its thermal profile..

I’m changing to Atmosphere – because it affects the amount of solar radiation absorbed and the thermal radiation emitted. Oh wait, no, but that doesn’t deal with the movement of the ocean layers like in the El Nino events. Or the thermohaline effect. No, I’m changing back to the ocean.

Both are important – and interact – which is why textbooks on climate science are quite lengthy, more than a few pages, and include equations and graphs.

I notice you are still unwilling to engage on the issue of uncertainty.

Your article was about Gerlich and Tscheuschner, not uncertainty.
Why not engage on the actual subject you wrote about?

I also look forward to you embracing and discussing the bigger picture, instead of fixating on radiation.

The bigger picture needs a strong foundation. Don’t you think it is important to understand basic physics to understand climate?

You set the tone of this blog. If the owner of the blog works like this what will the visitors do? Perhaps that’s your intent, if so it’s a shame.

Heh, I was goading you into replying after you had gone missing for a couple of days, welcome back.🙂

Your article was about Gerlich and Tscheuschner, not uncertainty.
Why not engage on the actual subject you wrote about?

Because uncertainty is an important (and large) part of climate science, but is underplayed, ignored, and hardly ever mentioned by proponents of the human caused global warming hypothesis. It renders categorical statements about many of the interactions in the climate system moot.

Don’t you think it is important to understand basic physics to understand climate?

Yes, and it’s also as important to understand the level of uncertainty about how well those tenets of basic lab physics can be applied to the real world climate system when our measurements and time series reconstructions of that system have a coarse granularity, are often cobbled together from disparate types of instrumentation over the years and are often short in length.

if the first twp statements are true (“Solar radiation absorbed = 240 W/m^2″, “Emission of thermal radiation from the ocean surface = 390 W/m^2″) then you need to find a large source of energy which explains the discrepancy. I am proposing the DLR. You could also propose that the first law of thermodynamics is flawed (just covering all bases).

You are not covering all the bases. There is the question of how much of the upward radiation is emitted by the water vapour molcules almost instantaneously evaporated from the ocean surface. You state that the Downward Longwave Radiation is measured a few metres above the surface of land, is the same true of the ocean, which is what we are discussing? Seems likely the measurements are from the deck of bggish vessels. How about OLR? Same?

No, the value 390 W/m^2 is the upward emission of thermal radiation from the surface.

Quite right, I wrongly typed 390 instead of 340. My mistake. And yes, I’m wondering how much of the DLR is absorbed and re-emitted in the humid air just above the surface hence my question about measuements at sea.

There is a huge tendency to equilibrium. Conduction, convection and radiation all move heat from higher to lower temperatures.

You forgot to mention the latent heat of evaporation. Ever studied how a swamp cooler works? And while we are on the subject of the first law of thermodynamics and the tendency of heat to move from higher to lower temperature objects; The worldwide ocean has an average temperature of around 17C, whereas according to Phil Jones of the CRU in this paper http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1999/1999RG900002.shtml the near surface air temperature has a global average of 13.7C.

So taken on the average, it seems that the first law of thermodynamics is on my side, not yours.😉

The fact that DLR penetrates a micron or less while solar radiation penetrates many meters actually still means that there is a temperature differential between the bulk of the ocean and the surface. There is a high level of turbulent mixing of the top few meters of the ocean and conduction and convection from the surface layer to lower levels.

It’s very instructive to watch wave motion in a glass tank from side on when you introduce a dye into the water. You’ll see that most of the mixing takes place below the surface in eddys within the wave structure. So the fact that there is turbulant mixing “in the top few meters” is not at issue. The question is what is happening to the surface where the DLR is stopped within a micron. That doesn’t get mixed down as much as you seem to think.

Straw man argument, I didn’t say or imply they didn’t operate, merely that the magnitude of their effect is tiny compared to the main energy flow, solar energy into ocean bulk. But on the subject of convection, are you sure you’ve thought this one through? Convection works when you heat fluids from below, because the heated molecules or atoms expand and become less dense, and so rise through the fluid conducting heat to lower temperature molecules or atoms they brush up against as they go. But if you heat from above, where are the expanded and less dense molecules going to go? Downwards is what you seem to be claiming. I respectfully suggest you revisit this notion.

If you heat the surface of a liquid you will get conduction from this surface into the bulk of the fluid.

Tell you what scienceofdoom, I’ll reheat my cold coffee with an immersed 600watt heater element, and you have a go at heating yours with a 600 watt hairdryer, and we’ll see who gets to drink hot coffee first.

Restating that DLR only penetrates the top micron isn’t evidence that convection and conduction of heat don’t take place.

Once again, I’m not saying it doesn’t take place, I’m saying that compared to the magnitude of the main energy flow, solar energy into ocean, it is not significant. This is because if you apply the basic laws of physics, you’ll see tha concentrating 340W/m^2 into a flim of water one micron thick is going to result in almost instantaneous evaporation of the surface molecules. Further applying the basic laws of physics, one would likely conclude that those evaporated molecules are pretty promptly going to start heading upwards away from the surface.

Now, you want to know more about my analysis of the data. Fair enough, I’ll gather my notes together and put up a new post soon and alert you to it, then we can have round two.

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to formulate your replies so far.

Scienceofdoom keeps on insisting that theere is backradiation.
Have a look at the following from the NASA website http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/radiation_facts.htm. There are similar energy budgets from other authors eg Ahilleas Maurellis & Jonathon Tennyson, Physics World.com, May 1 2003 (Inst of Space Research Utrecht Holland)
Taking Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009) values shows 161 w/m2 absorbed by the surface (168 by M&T, 174 by NASA), evaporation 80 w/m2 (78 M&T, 73 NASA), convection 17 w/m2 (which is low) (24 M&T, 22 NASA) leaving 64 w/m2 by radiation (66M&T, 79 NASA) of which both TFK and M&T say40 w/m2 goes direct to space through atmospheric windows.
Many engineers and scientists say that radiation is a secondary heat transfer mechanism coming after evaporation and convection.
If one wants to apply the adjusted Stefan-Boltzman equation, there are three possibilities a) the surface does not radiate but the boundary layer above it (containing moist air) does with an emissivity of about 0.165 b) one uses the formula Hr = sigma Es (Ts^4-Ta^4) where Hr is radiant heat w/m2 sigma is Stefan constant, Es is surface emissivity, Ts is surface temp K assumed 288K, Ta is average atmospheric temperature which would be around 240K or c) a combination of a) & b)

I lean to a). The low emissivity can easily be justified on the basis of water vapor being the only significant radiating gas and a thin boundary layer of less than 1m.

Cementafriend, thanks for that. So if there is 340w/m^2 DLR as Scientistofdoom says, but only ~168 absorbed by the surface, what happens to the rest of it? Is it reflected, absorbed by the near surface moist air, or what? And is this land surface, ocean surface, or the average of the two?

Tallbloke,
If you look at the diagrams (or as some say for TFK- cartoons), there is 341or 342 w/m2 in coming solar radiation of this 79 is reflected by clouds, 23 reflected by surfaces, 78 absorbed by the atmosphere (much absorbed at the top of the atmosphere by ozone), leaving 161 to be absorbed by surfaces. The in coming solar radiation is mainly short wave but there is some in the infra-red range. There is no net DLR which reaches the surface as assumed by TFK or Scienceofdoom.
As G&T say average temperatures and heat fluxes really have no meaning for radiation at the surface because, if one assumes that the (adjusted) Stefan-Boltzman equation, one should be averaging the fourth power of temperatures. However, in mathematics all manner of functions are possible (such as multiple dimensions for the universe- I once wrote a spreadsheet program using 8 dimensions) but that does not mean that such functions are physically possible.
By the way, in my post above I was teasing about leaning towards a) radiation from a boundary layer although that is as possible as any other hypothesis. Really, heat transfer in an open system of surface to atmosphere has not been well studied and certainly not by climate scientists who appear to have no training in thermodynamics, heat transfer, mass transfer or fluid dynamics.
Climate, the atmosphere, and the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere are complex.
Various clever people have said that photons do not exist. In closed system heat exchangers using a calculated radiation heat transfer coefficient which varies with (Ts^4-Tr^4)/(Ts-Tr) where Ts is the source temperature K and Tr is the receiver temperature K seems to work. In the atmosphere one can replace Tr by Ta. Ta would vary depending on the time of day and year and whether the sky is clear or cloudy. If one can calculate a meaningful average is very doubtful and then further what is the use?
I like your blog which brings interesting information and has few making inane comments.
Keep strong

But as you say, the internal thermodynamics are very complex and as I commented to S.o.D earlier, ignoring uncertainty and applying lab physics to complex non-linear systems is fraught with error.

This is why I try to look at the big picture, to get an engineering guesstimate of what is going on. I found a good match between the integral of TSI and the ocean heat content changes, which has formed the basis of my own hypothesis.

If you look at the diagrams (or as some say for TFK- cartoons), there is 341or 342 w/m2 in coming solar radiation of this 79 is reflected by clouds, 23 reflected by surfaces, 78 absorbed by the atmosphere (much absorbed at the top of the atmosphere by ozone), leaving 161 to be absorbed by surfaces. The in coming solar radiation is mainly short wave but there is some in the infra-red range. There is no net DLR which reaches the surface as assumed by TFK or Scienceofdoom.

As G&T say average temperatures and heat fluxes really have no meaning for radiation at the surface because, if one assumes that the (adjusted) Stefan-Boltzman equation, one should be averaging the fourth power of temperatures.

.

We measure the DLR at the surface. And if you want to calculate upward surface radiation, you can easily (time-consuming but not requiring any specialist knowledge) calculate the upward surface radiation from the measurements of temperature around the globe. In this case, you will be averaging the 4th power of temperature. It is easy to do. Many people have done it.

For people who want to understand the subject, DLR is a measured value. It’s like ocean salinity – there isn’t a network of 1000 stations around the world measuring it every day, but every time you measure it it has the same characteristics.

Some people don’t believe that DLR exists. Then explain the measurements.

Some people don’t believe that DLR is caused by the inappropriately-named “greenhouse” gases. Then explain the spectral characteristics.

Some people don’t believe that DLR is absorbed by the surface. Then explain the measurements from EBEX 2000 and redefine fundamental physics to explain how the surface stops absorbing specific energy photons – as explained in simple terms in Part Three

We still have the same problem. Data energy in is much less then data energy out. Therefor there is an error in data or concept. I vote for a large error in the concepts of energy into the system. I doubt that the heat from the earths’ core could makeup for that much energy. pg

Can we take it you now accept that convection doesn’t work upside down?

What are you talking about?
There are principally two types of convection:
1. Convection from buoyancy (natural) – hot air expands and then rise due to its lower density
2. Forced convection – in the atmosphere from wind action; in the ocean from circulation and wave action

Can you explain your (rhetorical) question?

How much does DLR vary between day and night? Does this measurement give us some idea of how much solar longwave makes it through the atmosphere?

We still have the same problem. Data energy in is much less then data energy out. Therefor there is an error in data or concept. I vote for a large error in the concepts of energy into the system. I doubt that the heat from the earths’ core could makeup for that much energy.

We don’t have a problem at all. Energy in = energy out. The first law of thermodynamics is still intact.

For people who get upset by the fact of DLR, there is a problem. That was my point.

However, if we add up the solar energy and DLR absorbed at the surface (globally annually averaged) then we don’t have a problem. The two together come to around 500 W/m^2.

Emission of radiation from the surface comes to a little less than 400 W/m^2.

The balance is made up by “sensible” and “latent” heat. Sensible being conduction and convection (primarily convection above the surface boundary) and latent being evaporation of water.

SoD:
1. You contend that a colder radiating body can heat a warmer radiating body in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Just because GHGs emit 340 Wm-2 DLR corresponding to an average radiating temperature of 5C, they cannot warm the oceans or land surface at 15C. Heat cannot flow from a colder/lower entropy source to a hotter/higher entropy source, otherwise total entropy would have to decrease.

2. LWIR only causes skin evaporation with all energy used up in the phase change and nada left over to heat underlying ocean layers. Steven Wilde & Roy Clark explain this (and reference a Nature paper) which I summarized in this post:

Can we take it you now accept that convection doesn’t work upside down?

What are you talking about?
There are principally two types of convection:
1. Convection from buoyancy (natural) – hot air expands and then rise due to its lower density
2. Forced convection – in the atmosphere from wind action; in the ocean from circulation and wave action

I know what I’m talking about thanks. Convection is convection. Your contrived second definition is describing mechanical mixing or stirring, not convection. And as I pointed out to you earlier, the surface is not mixed down into the ocean as much as you seem to think, because the turbulance due to wave action happens at a deeper level within the wave, well below the depth longwave radiation can penetrate to..

As far as I’m concerned, convection is the transportation of heat in fluids where the motion of the fluid is caused by the tendency to motion of the differentially heated elements within the fluid itself. Otherwise it’s a motion driven by external mechanical force, and is not convection, but conveyance.

However I accept that your definition is different and that within the terms of your own secondary definition of what you think convection is, your original statement makes sense.

Anyway, whichever definition of convection you go with, there isn’t much heat from the cooler atmosphere getting forced down into the warmer ocean (first law of thermodynamics), compared to the amount o solar energy which penetrates tens of metres into the ocean. It’s the relative magnitudes which so many people seem to struggle to understand.

Once again, the big picture is that the sun heats the ocean, and the ocean heats the atmosphere, as proved by the ~3 month lag between sea surface temperature change and the corresponding change in lower tropospheric temperature.

solar
temperature satellite tropical, few months, lag 0.37 year is a figure.
sea level, lag 3.5 to 4 years
CO2 annual cycle modulation, inverse phase sea level. (very very weak effect which was incidental to another work, wonder what that is, looked and had a surprise when it fitted, can’t find the file at the moment)

The basis is to do with solar magnetic and a common wave of circa 45 years.
This wave is the dominant factor in the solar dataset, not something buried in junk, regardless of the huge random noise factor.
Sea level data is consistent with Geosat through Jason 2, and Church & White agrees well enough. (C&W has a wobble where it tries to join the satellite data, looks right) Geosat fitting without slope reversal as some have assumed is necessary is highly amusing.

A question is why publication of satellite sea level data sampled every 10 days ceased, is many months out of date.
The shown strongly predictive model says flatten and fall but the data publication ceased at the top of the top spike.

Another example in the solar system of potential energetic reactions from the Sun to bodies with small size or insignificant gravitational effect is sungrazers, which sometimes correlate quite well with CME’s.

“Saturn, like Earth, produces electron beams which not only accelerate towards its auroral region but also away from it, say scientists this week in Nature. These ‘anti-planetward’ electrons puzzle scientists because they do not produce auroral light and do not fit into the current understanding of how auroras, which are usually found around a planet’s poles, are created.

Professor Michele Dougherty, of the Space and Atmospheric Physics group at Imperial College London and one of the authors of the research, said: “Auroras are still very mysterious and we dont fully understand what the connection is between the auroras and the electrons accelerating away from the Earth. The fact that we have now observed the same thing happening on Saturn means that we are even more curious about why this is taking place.””

Zeke the Sneak says:
October 2, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Don´t forget our earth´s humble contribution to its EM field: We are little however “life on earth” intermediates in energy balance: How much high frequency matter you have emitted lately?🙂

Adolfo Giurfa says:
October 3, 2010 at 1:39 pm“Don´t forget our earth´s humble contribution to its EM field: We are little however “life on earth” intermediates in energy balance: How much high frequency matter you have emitted lately? :-)”
I don’t account for too many emissions personally, but the biosphere in total does radiate much – mainly IR photons – which with a slight change to spin can perhaps become electrons???.

Tenuc, can you prove that photons exist? See my post at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-heat-doesnt-flow-from-cold-to-hot.html#comments. Also, the definition of radiation in the Chemical Engineers Handbook is “Radiation is the transfer of heat from one body to another, not in contact with it, by means of wave motion through space”. Micro-waves are the long waves on the radiation spectra. They excite specific molecular bonds particularly those in water.
The transmission (through bodies), absorption (by bodies), emission (from bodies) and reflection of radiation waves makes logical sense but can the same be said of a mythical photon having discriminating energy levels?

It appears to me that quanti such as photons,electrons, neutrinos, etc. are just affections of test devices. These things that are called quanti are actually units of aether that are telegraphing different energy signatures. An electron has spin in one plain, shows static effects and if it travels will cause EMF effects. A photon travels and spins in 2 plains,therefore shows EMF frequencies and carries a lot of energy. A neutrino travels, has little spin and therefore little effect on other things as it carries little energy. All indicator devices require an energy level shift of an atomic structure to demonstrate a quanti event.

To someone that knows how to look up such things, Back in 1987 or 88 I read a paper by a researcher that read “track photos” for Lawrence Labs. The paper was published in the Scientific American if I remember correctly. After reading several thousand “track” records his opinion was that, electrons, photons and neutrinos were interchangeable because in collisions they would change from one to another. After examination of his work I could find no error in his work or logic. This and my own knowlage of the workings of test equipment have lead me to the above point of view. That only a proton is a thing and all the rest are energy signals impressed on the aether. pg

Reply; there was a general peak in the number and percent of total area of coronal holes, which were rather wide spread, solar wind speeds and activity levels were up through the period, one CME was produced, was not of remarkable size or particularly OVER active, but it did make an appearance. Neptune passed 3 degrees South of the ecliptic plane and Jupiter about 5 degrees South at closest approach.

We had the Pakistani flooding for the passage of Neptune and the monsoonal flow they tried to call “TS Nicole” that is now coming to an end for the Jupiter/Uranus synod conjunctions.

Maximum ACE values still occurred around the peaks of the lunar declinational culmination angle, as per the original hypothesis. I also found that the original idea of the individual outer planets having about a 5 day long period of effect both sides of the Synod was still valid.

What the takeaway realization was from the forecast of an extended lull between the end of the 5 days effect of Neptune until the beginning of the 5 day effect of Jupiter Uranus, was wrong to expect the multiple planets to carry more than their normal +- 5 day influence, as the production of Igor and Julie went ahead and formed with ACE values at the peak of the declination angle anyway.

I am a glutton for self punishment it seems and i wen ahead and forecast afresh for the rest of the season again anyway.

Richard Holle says:
September 29, 2010 at 9:55 am
Jupiter Uranus conjunction on the 24th=peak of the MHD homopolar charging of the global fields, as the moon crossed the equator headed North. Moon Maximum North tomorrow on the 30th September 2010, and Large polar air mass is exiting the SE USA into Yucatan peninsula area today, pushing a large area of rapid heavy precipitation up the East coast, as it interacts with the tropical air mass in the Caribbean, being pulled North by the lunar tidal effects.
Because of the increased activity (due to the J/N conjunction) over the levels of activity seen the past three cycles, that I use to generate the forecasts on my site, there will be higher than forecast amounts of rainfall up the Eastern sea board than the past cyclic data shows, but in the same general areas.
Because all of the data I have is from ON the continental land mass, and a few oil platforms in the gulf, my methods vision is limited out to sea. What we are having in the Caribbean with TS Nicole is just the heavy precipitation normally seen as derechio events inland, after outer planet conjunctions. BUT the size of the J/N conjunction has pushed the polar (originated) air mass clear off the SE gulf coast into Yucatan.
I had thought that the precipitation surge along the East coast would have been a real tropical storm with eye wall and everything, so I expected ACE values to be peaking now.

Richard Holle says:
September 29, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Ric Werme says:
September 29, 2010 at 11:28 am
Ryan Maue says:
September 29, 2010 at 9:12 am
“”[ryanm: it’s clear that Santa Ana wind events, i.e. offshore flow are becoming more intense, consistent with what is expected/predicted by climate models. those 2.5×2.5 grid cells resolve those mountain passes perfectly]“”
____________Reply;
(I hope you are being sarcastic?) If the Santa Ana winds are being produced by the lunar tidal process, and enhanced by the outer planetary conjunctions, then the number and intensity should drop off as the total of these two effects will not be combining to produces an event as large as this one until Saturn or Jupiter comes close to a conjunction with either Neptune or Uranus, while the earth is in the area, in boreal Autumn.
The potential for this to happen again, IF it is the driving factor in increasing the intensity can be calculated by the use of a heliocentric ephemeris, and similar weather patterns forecast to be expected.http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
would be my place to start.
Today the moon is Maximum North declinational culmination @ ~23.7 degrees, the enhanced primary tidal bulge in the atmosphere just East of the Rocky Mountains is centered over Huntsville, Alabama, where it has been pivoting around for two days. With the polar air to the west of Huntsville and the equatorial air mass East to the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean.
For the next six days we should continue to see the high precip rates move North along the eastern seaboard. Starting early yesterday the 28th those two areas of tropical moisture off the west coast of Africa now at 12.5 deg N and 50 deg W being the “dig daddy” with his “little sister” to the east, should become active with real circulation and eyes like a normal TS, like Igor and Julie or Earl and Fiona, did earlier.
With a large swath of Precipitation up along the Eastern seaboard starting on October the 7th. (see the daily maps on my site) being off of the coast of Maine and Newfoundland by the 12th or 13th October 2010, when the Moon will be maximum South.
I expect a large flow or tropical moisture to come into the Western side of the Gulf of Mexico, starting on the 10th. and running until the 14th or 15th of October 2010, with a general return flow of much more moisture up into the Central plains from Texas, Mexico, and the gulf states for the whole 27.32 day cycle.
I don’t mean to be antagonistic, just sticking my neck out of my shell, the truth will be the axe wielder.

A this point the National Hurricane center is only showing a 10% chance of formation of the two spots the “big daddy” and “little sister” I expected to see form, so they are right on time, what the resultant intensity will be I might have gotten wrong,?? but not over yet??

I would expect the “Kids” to start growing as the moon crosses the equator on the 6th.

Richard Holle says:
October 4, 2010 at 3:34 am“At this point the National Hurricane center is only showing a 10% chance of formation of the two spots the “big daddy” and “little sister” I expected to see form, so they are right on time, what the resultant intensity will be I might have gotten wrong,?? but not over yet??

I would expect the “Kids” to start growing as the moon crosses the equator on the 6th.

‘Big daddy’ now up to 20% chance of becoming a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours as it moves west or WNW at around 10 mph.

But whether photons exist of not, is irrelevant. There definitely is some ubiquitous energy transfer system operating in the universe that allows us to produce a metal picture, or illusion, of the various energy densities around us (solid/liquid/gas/plasma/space), through our senses of photoreception, thermoception, mechanoreception, chemoreception and our sensation of pain and the passage of time.

My own thought is that, because of this inherent sensory separation, our observation of the physical world has resulted in an enormous complex edifice being constructed to explain the illusion of reality perceived in our mind.

My conjecture, using Occam’s razor, is that the universe is very simple and consists of just 2 things. The first is energy, which manifests itself in the many different forms we observe by a process of additive spins in differing axes (from plasma to solid). The second is a background ‘aether’ field which effects the spin of the energy passing through it and creates the order we see by deterministically chaotic turbulence.

Using the above as a reference frame, what should when a small quasi-stable spinning packet of energy from the sun (light) makes a direct hit on another stable packet of energy (CO2) ? – Remember spin is always additive – heat is just how our senses perceive the speed of that spin – like a disturbed gyroscope a bundle of energy will always tend to remain stable.

Sorry about the rambling reply, but hope you found some of it useful🙂

P.G. Sharrow says:- October 4, 2010 at 2:17 am

More good stuff, PG, thanks. I have not been able to find the paper you referred to, but I do agree – “his opinion was that, electrons, photons and neutrinos were interchangeable because in collisions they would change from one to another. After examination of his work I could find no error in his work or logic.” – 100%!!!

Tenuc says:
October 3, 2010 at 7:42 pm
IR photons becoming electrons…of lower frequency, so they must involve and increase its diameter, that´s easy. Evolving to shorter wave lengths/higher frequencies is harder to achieve, it is contrary to entropy, it´s negentropic…though it requires will and thus life.

cementafriend says: – October 4, 2010 at 12:39 am
“Tenuc, can you prove that photons exist?”
We must realize the law behind the “Table of the Elements”, the same gradation/relation among elements exists among all the rest of elements/particles, if this “table” is extrapolated both ways, to heavier and lighter elements/particles. Pay attention to diameters/wave length and to frequency: the lighter the higher its frequency; thus we can have a rational arrangement of all matter.
Of course, it is needless to point out, that, if arranged according frequency, then this arrangement obeys the same law of the sound spectrum.

Richard Holle says:
October 4, 2010 at 3:34 am“A this point the National Hurricane center is only showing a 10% chance of formation of the two spots the “big daddy” and “little sister” I expected to see form, so they are right on time, what the resultant intensity will be I might have gotten wrong,?? but not over yet??

I would expect the “Kids” to start growing as the moon crosses the equator on the 6th.”

Wednesday hurricane update:-

Big daddy making progress with a 90% chance of this system becoming a subtropical or tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours as it moves NW at 10 mph. No sign yet that the kids are doing anything much though.

A small recurrent coronal hole (CH424) was in an Earth facing position on October 5. This feature didn’t cause a geomagnetic disturbance during the previous rotation.

However, some people are convinced that a warmer body can have its temperature raised by absorbing the radiation from a cooler body. Dr Roy Spencer is one such, scienceofdoom seems to be another.

The problem is that the body doing the warming loses energy in the process, thereby becoming cooler. When all the heat energy has left the body, absolute zero results. The hotter body’s temperature would rise uncontrollably until the cooler body has transferred all its heat to the hotter body. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but I didn’t even complete high school, so what would I know.

Some people point to the fact that a container of a greenhouse gas warms up faster than the same quantity of “air”. So does a piece of black painted aluminium. So does anything that absorbs incoming heat radiation better than air. However this process only continues until the warming body reaches the point where incoming radiation cannot be absorbed further.

This is easily observable, my piece of blackened aluminium doesn’t get any hotter than around 80 deg C in full Sun, clear sky, daytime, around 12.5 deg S.

On the other hand, at night, the same piece of aluminium cools rapidly, clear sky, but close to the sea. It reaches its minimum temperature just before the Sun starts to rise.

This minimum temperature appears to be less than the surrounding atmospheric temperature.

It is also instructive to notice fog formation in low lying areas. You will notice the fog forms during the night (in spite of all the back radiation), and dissipates after the Sun rises, warms the ground, and warms the atmosphere above it. Air starts to move, due to convection, fog water droplets absorb heat and change into water vapour (gas). Now even if the wind does not transfer heat to the fog droplets, heat radiation from the Sun does. Once again, the water droplets absorb heat, and evaporate.

No “back radiation” involved.

For those who still equate heat energy with temperature, I suggest trying to boil your coffee using the heat energy contained in a largish iceberg. Lot of heat energy – after all it is probably above 250 deg K. The chance of using that energy to raise the temperature of your coffee to around 373 deg K is zero, according to me.

For anybody who believes you can achieve a net transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter one, I would appreciate your advice as to a practical method of doing this.

This should be a piece of pie for anyone who believes a cooler atmosphere can warm a warmer surface eg my piece of blackened aluminium. I only need it raised another 30 deg C, so I can boil water with it. If I scale it up, I can then generate my own electricity, by using the energy extracted from the atmosphere by using this “back radiation”.

A side benefit is that the temperature of the atmosphere will drop, (I will of course be extracting a LOT of energy), and if enough energy is extracted we can ensure the atmosphere will not get above whatever limit we set. Once again, I don’t think you can do it, but I don’t have any degrees, scientific or otherwise.

As a final note, to anyone who thinks that this “back radiation” arises from compression of the atmosphere, I suggest you visit your local compressed gas vendor. If you are correct, you should be able to identify, at the very least, full gas bottles from empty ones, by the variation in container temperature. Good luck with that.

So, “back radiation”. Sure, everything above absolute zero radiates heat. Using that heat to warm something warmer than the radiating body can’t be done in practice, as far as I can see. If you could, you could easily construct a perpetual motion machine of the second kind — good luck with that too. Enough “thought experiments”. Come up with rigorous, repeatable, verifiable “real” experiments, and I will be convinced I was wrong and change my mind.

Subtropical storm Otto, located about 235 miles northeast of GrandTurk island and about 635 miles south-southwest of Bermuda heading NW away from the USA.

Also a surface low pressure trough is producing an area of showers and thunderstorms over the west-central Caribbean Sea about midway between Honduras and Jamaica. Development of this disturbance, if any, should be slow to occur as it moves southward at 10 to 15 mph. There is only a 10% chance of this system becoming a tropical cyclone during the next 48 hours.

Elsewhere, tropical cyclone formation is not expected during the next 48 hours.

However, some people are convinced that a warmer body can have its temperature raised by absorbing the radiation from a cooler body. Dr Roy Spencer is one such, scienceofdoom seems to be another.

The problem is that the body doing the warming loses energy in the process, thereby becoming cooler. When all the heat energy has left the body, absolute zero results. The hotter body’s temperature would rise uncontrollably until the cooler body has transferred all its heat to the hotter body. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but I didn’t even complete high school, so what would I know.

It is a common misconception. Think about what you are saying. If the situation was as you describe it then in fact the earth and atmosphere would be at around 3K, the background temperature of the universe.

If you are saying that without the Sun, the Earth’s temp would be around 3K, I agree. I hope you agree that it wouldn’t matter whether the Earth started wrapped. in CO2 or 1000 Km thickness of insulating foam. Final result, around 3K.

Add the Sun. I now agree with you that the surface temperature will reach a new equilibrium.

I think we disagree on this new equilibrium temperature. It will depend on the insulating ability of what the Earth is wrapped in, given the “switching off” of the heat from the Sun each night.

The type of insulation makes no difference. It contributes no energy of its own. It “smooths” the extremes of temperature which would occur if it wasn’t present — as per the Moon.

I agree back radiation exists. But even if you place a body inside a globe with perfect reflectivity, and 100% of the body’s radiation is reflected back, the body will not increase in temperature. It won’t get any cooler, in theory, but it certainly cannot cannot get any hotter.

That is assuming 100% back radiation. No such reflector exists, so a body obviously cannot increase in temperature by back radiation from a cooler body.

Enough of this. Give me a verifiable physical experiment which demonstrates a measurable rise in temperature caused by a transfer of heat from a cooler (ie lower temperature) body to a warmer (ie higher temperature) body, and I will change my thinking.

I have looked at the reference you gave, and I can only see the energy from the Sun warming two bodies. Can you not see that the Sun warms both? Remove the Sun, and they both lose energy, eventually reaching around 3K, and radiating heat energy at each other at that temperature. Doesn’t matter is one is the size of the Sun, and one is the size of a needle, the temperature is exactly the same, even though the larger object is radiating far more heat energy. Now add the Sun. Exactly the same, but in reverse.

Enough of this. Give me a verifiable physical experiment which demonstrates a measurable rise in temperature caused by a transfer of heat from a cooler (ie lower temperature) body to a warmer (ie higher temperature) body, and I will change my thinking.

Mike Flynn says:
“Enough of this. Give me a verifiable physical experiment which demonstrates a measurable rise in temperature caused by a transfer of heat from a cooler (ie lower temperature) body to a warmer (ie higher temperature) body, and I will change my thinking.”

Get two buckets o water. Two heat lamps, Two rooms. Run the heat lamps over the buckets, have the rooms at two different air T’s, say 25C and 0C(you may need an air conditioner, or heater depending where you live). Now if your understanding o physics is correct, the buckets will reach the same equilibrium T’s, in spite o the different boundary conditions o the buckets o water… if SOD is right, the bucket in the warmer room will reach a higher equilibrium T.

Its because of the second law this is true, not in spite o it. The second law is, entropy increases or stays the same. Entropy is the nature of energy/chaos. A high T is showing confined chaos, that chaos will increase, disperse. But it cant go from a more spread out state to a more confined state, without work being performed(and you still have increasing chaos here, because it will take as much energy to compress air say, than what you gain out of the compression, negative entropy can only happen if you look at part of a process. If energy is locked in chemical bonds, entropy stays the same, chaos dosnt spread, until it is released from its bonds, then its chaos will spread.

So, the T of the atmosphere limits the amount off energy released from the oceans into the atmosphere, because the oceans cant move more energy across the boundary than its T differential with the atmosphere. Because otherwise, chaos would be moving from a more dispersed state(cooler) to a more confined state(hotter)